RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Sanity -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 7:48:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Good post. I read a memorable quote today about IRAQ from someone living in exile back in 2003. "Topple Saddam, and you'll end up with 1000 little Saddams."


I wonder if they said the same about Hitler and Hirohito



GoddessManko -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 7:49:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

France has been solidly arming the Kurds, which will be the big payoff.


The Kurds are not so much an issue except for the Kurdish rebels who on occasion invaded Turkey. The Kurds at this point wish to be sovereign. They also have a decent amount of oil in Northern Iraq.
The issue was with the Sunnis and Shi'ites within Iraq. Saddam was Sunni and he ruled a Shi'ite majority with an iron fist yes, but his sons really were far worse of tyrants than he ever was. Once he got ousted, neighboring nations saw an opportunity. There were insurgents coming from all sides.
This is important to know, apart from Iraq, the only middle eastern country with a Shi'ite majority is Iran, so essentially, they can be bullied by the "majority".
So there was a territorial issue with Iraq where insurgents from Sunni countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria made their way into Iraq to fight an ideological war against the Shi'ite insurgents from Iran.
It turned of course into the bloodbath we saw under Bush and only 5of 18 political benchmarks set by the GAO were ever met under his presidency.
As order was finally restored in that region we had all those issues with Assad and Syria emerge. Assad is taking a page out of the Russian playbook of "covert wars" and is launching proxy attacks within Iraq as I had suspected in order to dismantle the fragile order set in place. Now we are having dialogue with Iran because since Bush they had essentially controlled the Shi'ite majority within Iraq. They were buying their oil from Russia due to sanctions, resulted from lack of compliance with the IAEA, before Syria was ever on Russia's radar. The issue for Russia is now with Iran and Syria they are playing devil's advocate and both sides of the fence, ergo all of the current moves by the US as far as Iran being more open to dialogue than ever before (after the "betrayal" by Russia) and the diaspora of Iraqis into neighboring countries as a result of Assad's Isis agents.
The president is making all of the correct strategic moves needed at this moment to ensure the security remains long term, Hawkish with Syria, Protectionist in Iraq and doveish with Iran. Wars cannot be won by bullets alone. There has to be real strategy with real LONG TERM results. Assad thinks he can be a bully, he will only respond to this thought being disproven.
Usually I avoid such topics but eh...



Dvr22999874 -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 8:03:54 PM)

How in the name of all the gods did France pull anybody into Indo-China ? It was the Americans that taught, trained and armed the Viet-Minh in the first place and France was long out of Indo-China before the first 'advisers' showed their heads. America went into that country on the 'Reds-under-the-bed' scare that was rattling around the western world at that time (somebody DID mention the 'Domino Theory' here and I believe that was some American hawk that theorised on that load of bollocks). Much as I dislike France, please don't blame them for something they really had sweet F.A. to do with.



Aylee -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 8:12:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

How in the name of all the gods did France pull anybody into Indo-China ? It was the Americans that taught, trained and armed the Viet-Minh in the first place and France was long out of Indo-China before the first 'advisers' showed their heads. America went into that country on the 'Reds-under-the-bed' scare that was rattling around the western world at that time (somebody DID mention the 'Domino Theory' here and I believe that was some American hawk that theorised on that load of bollocks). Much as I dislike France, please don't blame them for something they really had sweet F.A. to do with.



US advisers began arriving in 1950 (to help France) and it was STILL French-Indochina.

Edited to add:

There is actually a rather famous book AND movie (with Mel Gibson) that goes over this. "We Were Soldiers Once. . . And Young"



Aylee -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 8:21:13 PM)

Hey, maybe we will partner with China next!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/chinas-war-on-terror-becomes-all-out-attack-on-islam-in-xinjiang/2014/09/19/5c5840a4-1aa7-4bb6-bc63-69f6bfba07e9_story.html

"China says foreign religious ideas — often propagated over the Internet— have corrupted the people of Xinjiang, promoting fundamentalist Saudi Arabian Wahhabi Islam and turning some of them towards terrorism in pursuit of separatist goals. It also blames a radical Islamist Uighur group — said to be based in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas and to have links to al-Qaeda — for a recent upsurge in violence. In March, a gruesome knife attack at a train station in the city of Kunming left 33 people dead, while in May, a bomb attack on a street market in Urumqi killed 43 others."


Not that I believe everything that the Chinese Government says, but it is an interesting turn of events.



BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 8:53:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR
France has started air strikes in Iraq.
But we all know about their Spartanesque attitude toward war.


As a student of history, I am quite convinced that being on the same side as France is generally quite unsafe.


And isn't the EU buying oil from ISIS? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ccd_1410814052

They make great red shirts (see Star Trek)



Edvynn -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 8:54:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Good post. I read a memorable quote today about IRAQ from someone living in exile back in 2003. "Topple Saddam, and you'll end up with 1000 little Saddams."


I wonder if they said the same about Hitler and Hirohito


They sure did, and now you see the proof in evidence in the universities, as almost all of them teach German and most of them teach Japanese.

Ich kann diese nicht verstehen.






BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 8:55:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR
France has started air strikes in Iraq.
But we all know about their Spartanesque attitude toward war.




I'm shocked that French bombs can find their way to the ground.

Even if they manage to do that, I wonder if they'll find some other way to malfunction. I just have this picture in my head of a Muslim Imam, selling unexploded French ordinance with a sign that reads: "French paper weights. Never exploded and only dropped once."







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?

I saw that they were bombing, didn't see that they hit anything.



BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 8:57:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

As a student of history, I am quite convinced that being on the same side as France is generally quite unsafe.



There's a quote about France, probably arising from their reputation based upon their late entry into our revolution while promising help for years, all of WWI and most of WWII that goes: "The French. They're there, when they need you."







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?



There is also the War of 1812.

And for all the screeching the leftards do about the VietNam war, you'd think they'd be conversant with the facts . . . we were pulled into that hell by . . . France!

Worth noting that the only reason the French helped the rebellion of a British colony was because it was part of the "great game" of that age. I'm happy they wanted to stick a branch through the Brits' spokes, but I don't confuse their motivation for anything beyond that.



Actually the British signed the treaty ending the war of 1812 largely because Napoleon had escaped Elba.



BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 9:00:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

How in the name of all the gods did France pull anybody into Indo-China ? It was the Americans that taught, trained and armed the Viet-Minh in the first place and France was long out of Indo-China before the first 'advisers' showed their heads. America went into that country on the 'Reds-under-the-bed' scare that was rattling around the western world at that time (somebody DID mention the 'Domino Theory' here and I believe that was some American hawk that theorised on that load of bollocks). Much as I dislike France, please don't blame them for something they really had sweet F.A. to do with.

We sent advisers because the French ran out.



BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 9:02:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

How in the name of all the gods did France pull anybody into Indo-China ? It was the Americans that taught, trained and armed the Viet-Minh in the first place and France was long out of Indo-China before the first 'advisers' showed their heads. America went into that country on the 'Reds-under-the-bed' scare that was rattling around the western world at that time (somebody DID mention the 'Domino Theory' here and I believe that was some American hawk that theorised on that load of bollocks). Much as I dislike France, please don't blame them for something they really had sweet F.A. to do with.



US advisers began arriving in 1950 (to help France) and it was STILL French-Indochina.

Edited to add:

There is actually a rather famous book AND movie (with Mel Gibson) that goes over this. "We Were Soldiers Once. . . And Young"

That took place in the 60's, it is the only Vietnam movie that doesn't infuriate me.



Edvynn -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 9:14:07 PM)


Because it's a complete fairytale, no wonder.

Though I have to admit that I am surprised that the John Wayne "Green Beret" movie infuriated you.





BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 9:40:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edvynn


Because it's a complete fairytale, no wonder.

Though I have to admit that I am surprised that the John Wayne "Green Beret" movie infuriated you.




First off We Were Soldiers is anything but a fairytale. It is a first had account by the people who were there. It is things like Apocalypse Now that are leftist fairytales.
The Green Berets was a WWII movie that happened to take place in Vietnam, while it has the trappings of a Vietnam movie I don't think of it as one.
You consider We Were Soldiers as a fairytale because it doesn't make the American soldier out to be a monster.



BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 9:41:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edvynn


Because it's a complete fairytale, no wonder.

Though I have to admit that I am surprised that the John Wayne "Green Beret" movie infuriated you.




By the way, who's sock are you?



Edvynn -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 10:37:30 PM)


Good thing there is no question whatsoever who's sock you are.

But I don't 'sock' or whatever else for anybody, and never have.

Unlike you.

In any case, I consider "We Were Soldiers" to be a fairy tale not because the events as the movie played it were a fiction, but it's a fairy tale as in presenting itself as being representative of the entire 15 year misadventure.

And I think "Apocalypse" sucked, and I think both Oliver Stone Vietnam movies sucked, badly, and I think "Hambutger Hill" and "Full Metal Jacket" sucked, and I think "Catch 22" sucked (I tried to like it, I like Alan Arkin, but it just sucked), and did I mention "The Deer Hunter"? completely sucked, on every level.

except that none of that means much since all those bazillion WWII movies sucked even ten times worse.

I hope you're getting the point, here.

To either glorify or to demonize all these tragedies for sake of (or as fodder for) salable drama in the entertainment industry is something I find disgusting in the extreme.








BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 10:59:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edvynn


Good thing there is no question whatsoever who's sock you are.

But I don't 'sock' or whatever else for anybody, and never have.

Unlike you.

In any case, I consider "We Were Soldiers" to be a fairy tale not because the events as the movie played it were a fiction, but it's a fairy tale as in presenting itself as being representative of the entire 15 year misadventure.

And I think "Apocalypse" sucked, and I think both Oliver Stone Vietnam movies sucked, badly, and I think "Hambutger Hill" and "Full Metal Jacket" sucked, and I think "Catch 22" sucked (I tried to like it, I like Alan Arkin, but it just sucked), and did I mention "The Deer Hunter"? completely sucked, on every level.

except that none of that means much since all those bazillion WWII movies sucked even ten times worse.

I hope you're getting the point, here.

To either glorify or to demonize all these tragedies for sake of (or as fodder for) salable drama in the entertainment industry is something I find disgusting in the extreme.







No it represented one incident.
And it was the only Vietnam movie which treated the American soldier with any respect.
It treated the VC as not monsters but as enemy soldiers.
If you came out disliking any one it was the brass on both sides.
And the Lt who got his platoon cut off.
I doubt that you liked Gettysburg, Gods an Generals, A Bridge to Far, or the Lost Battalion. All of which were good movies and as historically accurate as you can hope for from Hollywood.
Are there any historical dramas that you like?
The original All the Kings Men was a good fictionalization of Huey Long, but it is that boring history stuff again.



Edvynn -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 11:05:57 PM)


I understand what you are saying, and now that you reminded me, yes I appreciated the portrayal of what the other side was going through too.



Edvynn -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 11:12:40 PM)


It;s just that the unfathomably horrific things that 6 different uncles told of their experience in WWII (and one of them also serving in Korea, all the way through) makes me want to avoid movies like this, but as I already admitted, I went and saw too many of them anyway.




BamaD -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 11:17:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edvynn


I understand what you are saying, and now that you reminded me, yes I appreciated the portrayal of what the other side was going through too.

And none of this has any bearing on the fact that Isis is a fanatical organization and a threat to anyone who disagrees with them



Edvynn -> RE: Foreign Policy -- The Complicated Road Ahead (9/19/2014 11:40:50 PM)


What does have bearing on the matter is that terrorist recruitment was at an all time low after 9/11/01 and there was more Arab and ME sympathy to the US than there ever was before.


So of course the obvious thing to do for national security was to invade a ME country and thereby make terrorist recruitment skyrocket and increase regional political advantage of the most radical factions all across the region.

Makes sense, no?

OK, what were you saying about ISIS then?





Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625